AOPA Propaganda, cont.

In article
outaviation.com,
"Skylune" wrote:

by "Jim Macklin" Dec 13, 2005 at
11:55 AM


The word "impact" is used because the government requires
"impact" statements, such as the EPA "environmental impact".

The AOPA is exactly correct, aviation is effected by the
number of flight restrictions, extra costs, public
perception (the media is ignorant and just wants a headline,
facts just get in the way).

The government uses the word "impact" as a noun: Environmental impact.

AOPA uses it incorrectly as a verb, as in "airports are negatively
impacted..."

I agree with you that GA is AFFECTED by ADIZ. Thats the idea behind the
ADIZ: protecting critical airspace from misuse. Whether this is the
right approach is debatable.

As far as the AOPA's "independent" study, I think I would prefer the ATA's
"independent" study better. Especially given the huge tax subsidies that
GA already receives. Such subsidies are in addition to the fees paid by
commercial aviation travellers to support the FAA infrastructure. GA needs
to pay its own way. An independent study is required!



Why does "Skyloon" pick on just GA? How about the $2.5 billion in
federal money for bicycle facilities? How about all the money for
waterways and Coast Guard for his boat? How about all the money being
spent for "wilderness" areas accessible only to backpackers?

We can start talking about "paying our way" when every other interest
does the same -- until then, shut the hell up!

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

Orval f wrote: Why does "Skyloon" pick on just GA? How about the $2.5
billion in
federal money for bicycle facilities? How about all the money for
waterways and Coast Guard for his boat? How about all the money being
spent for "wilderness" areas accessible only to backpackers?

We can start talking about "paying our way" when every other interest
does the same -- until then, shut the hell up!

Well written Orval! Hooray! The AOPA should do as well (seriously).

As far as your questions: I "pick on" GA because the small planes make
alot of noise. If not for the noise, I could really care less how people
get their kicks. The tax subsidies add insult to injury. So I "pick."

User fees already exist in national parks and state parks that I visit.
(Many of course are infected by the horrendous droning of small
recreational airplanes, which detracts from the experience.)

I'm not familiar with the $2.5bn for bicyclists - I assume this is part of
the pork laden Transporation bill that passed congress recently? If so, I
am certainly against that also. However, since bicycles don't fly over my
head and make distubing noises, I don't care as much.

Small planes should be subject to the same community noise laws as EVERY
OTHER sound generating device, be it a car, a car stereo, a leaf blower, a
Harley Davidson motorcycle, a garage band, etc,

GA pays for "services" required by the airlines and military
with fuel taxes. Airlines want and pay for their services
by passing along costs to each passenger. The military uses
their own controllers in their airspace and FAA services in
civil airspace.

There is more than enough room for all to fly, but the FAA
forces flight restrictions and then wants "user fees" to pay
for "services" that are only needed because of the FAA
regulation. And now we have TSA and their regulation.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
| by "Jim Macklin"
Dec 13, 2005 at
| 11:55 AM
|
|
| The word "impact" is used because the government requires
| "impact" statements, such as the EPA "environmental
impact".
|
| The AOPA is exactly correct, aviation is effected by the
| number of flight restrictions, extra costs, public
| perception (the media is ignorant and just wants a
headline,
| facts just get in the way).
|
| The government uses the word "impact" as a noun:
Environmental impact.
|
| AOPA uses it incorrectly as a verb, as in "airports are
negatively
| impacted..."
|
| I agree with you that GA is AFFECTED by ADIZ. Thats the
idea behind the
| ADIZ: protecting critical airspace from misuse. Whether
this is the
| right approach is debatable.
|
| As far as the AOPA's "independent" study, I think I would
prefer the ATA's
| "independent" study better. Especially given the huge tax
subsidies that
| GA already receives. Such subsidies are in addition to
the fees paid by
| commercial aviation travellers to support the FAA
infrastructure. GA needs
| to pay its own way. An independent study is required!
|
|
|
|

GA pays for "services" required by the airlines and military
with fuel taxes. Airlines want and pay for their services
by passing along costs to each passenger. The military uses
their own controllers in their airspace and FAA services in
civil airspace.

There is more than enough room for all to fly, but the FAA
forces flight restrictions and then wants "user fees" to pay
for "services" that are only needed because of the FAA
regulation. And now we have TSA and their regulation.

Jeez. The few cents in AV gas taxes you pay is a pittance relative to
the
AIP capital grants and operating grants.

You say (straight from the AOPA playbook/kabuki show): Commercial air
just
passes along the costs to passengers! Awesome! You have hit on the
solution. Rather than charge pilots for user fees, just assess user fees
to the FBOs! That way no one will get hurt!!!!!

I'm sorry... forgot that you are a troll. Message blocker here I come.

Bob

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
by "Bob Gardner" bobmrg@[EMAIL PROTECTED] Dec 13, 2005 at 11:08 AM


GA has a very small, fragmented voice as it is. I'm glad that AOPA is on
the
scene making outraged noises because each of us individually might as
well

holler down a well or write our comments in the sand. Without AOPA, EAA,
NBAA, et al we would have been smooshed into a grease spot decades ago.
More
power to them.

Bob Gardner

Well, lobbying groups are an established piece of the US political
landscape. I just think that AOPA is a very amateurish operation, and
some of their releases are completely irrational, if not downright
laughable. I once quoted from one of their missives on user fees: it was
so poorly written that people here accused me of fabricating it, until I
provided the web link to the article.


They will not convince anyone not already in the "choir." The AOPA's
IMPACT ("Impact should remain a noun; a proposal can have an impact, but
cannot impact anything without degenerating into jargon. The only thing
that can be impacted is a wisdom tooth" -- From Rutgers.edu grammar and
style guide, which AOPA writers DESPERATELY need to take a look at) on the
nonflying public is nil at best, and is probably negative. Many of their
arguments (against user fees, for example) are easily dismissed by an
undergrad that has taken a basic logic course.

In article
outaviation.com,
"Skylune" wrote:

Orval f wrote: Why does "Skyloon" pick on just GA? How about the $2.5
billion in
federal money for bicycle facilities? How about all the money for
waterways and Coast Guard for his boat? How about all the money being
spent for "wilderness" areas accessible only to backpackers?

We can start talking about "paying our way" when every other interest
does the same -- until then, shut the hell up!

Well written Orval! Hooray! The AOPA should do as well (seriously).

As far as your questions: I "pick on" GA because the small planes make
alot of noise. If not for the noise, I could really care less how people
get their kicks. The tax subsidies add insult to injury. So I "pick."


User fees already exist in national parks and state parks that I visit.
(Many of course are infected by the horrendous droning of small
recreational airplanes, which detracts from the experience.)

NONSENSE! I object to subsidizing those who attempt to inhibit MY right
to fly! Eco-Nazis head the list.

I'm not familiar with the $2.5bn for bicyclists - I assume this is part of
the pork laden Transporation bill that passed congress recently? If so, I
am certainly against that also. However, since bicycles don't fly over my
head and make distubing noises, I don't care as much.

Live with it!

Small planes should be subject to the same community noise laws as EVERY
OTHER sound generating device, be it a car, a car stereo, a leaf blower, a
Harley Davidson motorcycle, a garage band, etc,


If you use any of the above more than 1000 ft away from anyone, there is
no way to enforce it. BTW, we cannot break up aviation regulation into a
million bits (local enforcement) and have any hope of being able to
comply with all of them, can we? Or is that "Skyloon's" intention in the
first place?

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

Why does "Skyloon" pick on just GA?

He probably just picked us at random. He's just a little kid who acts up because
any attention is better than none, even if it's somebody yelling at you.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

Jim Macklin wrote:

The military uses
their own controllers in their airspace and FAA services in
civil airspace.

The military also provides ATC services in certain areas. Most traffic in
central New Jersey is handled by McGuire AFB.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:3mMnf.13741$Ea6.3926@trnddc08...
Jim Macklin wrote:

The military uses their own controllers in their airspace and FAA
services in civil airspace.

The military also provides ATC services in certain areas. Most traffic in
central New Jersey is handled by McGuire AFB.

George Patterson

As a matter of fact, I spent a little time being shephearded by controllers
at Luke AFB just this afternoon.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
AZ Cloudbusters
Chandler, AZ

A jet, like the G V needs a 5,000 runway, 100 feet wide and
2 feet thick, including the sub-base.
A King Air or Citation needs 3,000, 75 feet wide and maybe
1 -2 feet thick.

An airliner such as the 747, 757, 777 needs 7,000-10,000
feet 200 feet wide and 4 feet thick.

A C152 needs even less. But the fees collected from the
fuel taxes add up to a whole lot more, particularly when you
consider that FAA "services" are only offered in controlled
airspace and controlled airspace exists because the airlines
want it.

But rational reasons are not what you want to hear, neither
do you want to hear an airplane fly over and disturb you in
your chosen pastime.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
| GA pays for "services" required by the airlines and
military
| with fuel taxes. Airlines want and pay for their services
| by passing along costs to each passenger. The military
uses
| their own controllers in their airspace and FAA services
in
| civil airspace.
|
| There is more than enough room for all to fly, but the FAA
| forces flight restrictions and then wants "user fees" to
pay
| for "services" that are only needed because of the FAA
| regulation. And now we have TSA and their regulation.
|
| Jeez. The few cents in AV gas taxes you pay is a pittance
relative to
| the
| AIP capital grants and operating grants.
|
| You say (straight from the AOPA playbook/kabuki show):
Commercial air
| just
| passes along the costs to passengers! Awesome! You have
hit on the
| solution. Rather than charge pilots for user fees, just
assess user fees
| to the FBOs! That way no one will get hurt!!!!!
|
|